Using Statistics to Prove the Bible

[BeaconofTruth]

As Christians, we know the Bible is correct because it says so, and that's proof enough (2 Timothy 3:16) of his word.

Nonetheless, some atheists who love their book-learning need some equation or something for it to be called evidence.

So I came up with a simple way to prove that Christianity is true (crosspost from my Yahoo Answers ministry):

http://christianity.about.com/od/easter/a/7-Proofs-Of-The-Resurrection.htm

Any 1 of these 7 proofs would point to a strong likelihood of the Resurrection. All 7 points to near certainty.

If each thing had a probability of 50% of being by chance (no resurrection), then all proofs being fulfilled by chance alone and not the Resurrection is 1/2^7 = 1/128. p<.05, so the null hypothesis is rejected.



So basically, even if we assume each of those evidence points only gave a 50% chance of the Resurrection happening, then it would still be considered very unlikely the Bible is false (which is the null hypothesis).

So even with that conservative estimate, the null hypothesis is rejected and the Bible is right!

Praise Jesus!

[BeaconofTruth]

Re: Using Statistics to Prove the Bible

Any other thoughts on this?

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Using Statistics to Prove the Bible

Any other thoughts on this?

If your null hypothesis is that The Bible is false, why are 6 of the 7 references from the book itself? That is not how statistics work.

The 7th reference is to people dying for their beliefs. That demonstrates nothing about the beliefs.

In the Josephus link I read

We will not investigate the question of Josephus' reliability closely here

which I would have considered critical an any analysis such as you have linked to.

Additionally, I noticed a link to some source offering to—what was it again?—oh yes: to astrologically determine who I had been in past lives. That is utterly unbiblical, and so in rejecting what The Bible says about that, especially in the light of its falsehood being your null hypothesis, why should the reader accept its veracity on the other points?

Further, I could not see any probabilities calculated, or even suggested, that H0 is false.

From the point of view of the statistical method you're using, that is beyond pivotal. Is is the sole objective.

Christians believe The Bible. For such readers the resurrection is not actually in doubt in the first place. Really, that is a tautology I suppose but there are people who claim to be Christians yet disbelieve its testimony so it's worth mentioning the point. In seeking to convince others who do not accept The Bible as evidence but as "the claim" some extra-biblical material needs to be included. Material from the Sanhedrin might satisfy that criterion but when I followed the link I found a précis of what the Sanhedrin was, nothing about what they had written. Which is the same as no evidence from the Sanhedrin.

I hope that is helpful.

[BeaconofTruth]

Re: Using Statistics to Prove the Bible

But other eyewitness accounts confirm the Bible; that's the point.

I admit it could be refined, but the evidence for the Bible is enormous (see evidence Bible by Ray Comfort) hence why the null hypothesis is rejected. Scriptures are found not only in the Bible but also corroborated by other manuscripts.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Using Statistics to Prove the Bible

But other eyewitness accounts confirm the Bible; that's the point.

Your link didn't present any.

(see evidence Bible by Ray Comfort) hence why the null hypothesis is rejected.

Ray Comfort does not use statistics. Your statistical analysis would need to show that whatever evidence you have is significantly different from the null hypothesis, perhaps by calculating (not looking up) a value for χ and using a t test to establish the consistency of those sources. Since you are using Josephus, the Sanhedrin et al. as sources The Bible alone, from the perspective of statistical analyses, would be a single source and because the links I followed contained no witness statements from the Sanhedrin and since Josephus was born after Jesus' crucifixion all you have to work with is a single source. Where n = 1 obviously there are 0 degrees of freedom so you will have to better than that. Since you have elicited a response this is what I would suggest but it is you who wants to apply statistics, not me.

For textual analysis, however, a stats analysis of entropy in grammar (using the original languages) could demonstrate whether New Testament accounts are from different authors. The onus to do that is on you.

Thank you for your enquiry.

[alooneymoron]

Re: Using Statistics to Prove the Bible

But other eyewitness accounts confirm the Bible; that's the point.

I admit it could be refined, but the evidence for the Bible is enormous (see evidence Bible by Ray Comfort) hence why the null hypothesis is rejected. Scriptures are found not only in the Bible but also corroborated by other manuscripts.

Ray Comfort, the banana guy?

[BeaconofTruth]

Re: Using Statistics to Prove the Bible

Your link didn't present any.



Ray Comfort does not use statistics. Your statistical analysis would need to show that whatever evidence you have is significantly different from the null hypothesis, perhaps by calculating (not looking up) a value for χ and using a t test to establish the consistency of those sources. Since you are using Josephus, the Sanhedrin et al. as sources The Bible alone, from the perspective of statistical analyses, would be a single source and because the links I followed contained no witness statements from the Sanhedrin and since Josephus was born after Jesus' crucifixion all you have to work with is a single source. Where n = 1 obviously there are 0 degrees of freedom so you will have to better than that. Since you have elicited a response this is what I would suggest but it is you who wants to apply statistics, not me.

For textual analysis, however, a stats analysis of entropy in grammar (using the original languages) could demonstrate whether New Testament accounts are from different authors. The onus to do that is on you.

Thank you for your enquiry.

OK, I will work on that. Perhaps I'll contact some creation linguistics professors for help on that. Statistics is difficult, but it is pure joy when done for the glory of the Lord.

As for the guy who mocked Ray Comfort (alooneymoron), all I have to say is that Ray Comfort's banana argument still disproves atheism. Humans intelligently designed the domesticated banana, and God provided the mechanisms for such transformations to take place. As such, Creation proves the existence and glory of the Lord.

[alooneymoron]

Re: Using Statistics to Prove the Bible

Dont put to much credence in the banana argument. Mr. Comfort was not serious.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Banana_fallacy

[BeaconofTruth]

Re: Using Statistics to Prove the Bible

Dont put to much credence in the banana argument. Mr. Comfort was not serious.



http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Banana_fallacy

Scripture or your argument is invalid.

[JewPincher]

Re: Using Statistics to Prove the Bible

As a mathematician, statistics was never my favorite. However, this is beautiful! Keep up the good work in theomathematics! We should talk sometime!